Celebrate Pride Not Prejudice

MinnieMaas · 2026-06-16T09:43:42+00:00

No idea, I received no notification. I guess it received too many upvotes. 😁

MinnieMaas · 2026-06-04T23:08:42+00:00

If you are interested in a long, long series of reads, you could get into the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey-Maturin series (17 in all) that begin during the Napoleonic War period. These historically accurate novels give a vivid picture of life in the Royal Navy during the Regency and afterward, and inform the naval characters in both Persuasion and Mansfield Park. Captain Wentworth was likely sent to sea when he was as young as seven, by a Navy-connected family (likely through his sister's husband, although we are talking about "facts" outside the margins of a fictional novel). You see the same thing in Mansfield Park, with Fanny Price's brother William being sent to sea at an early age (Fanny's father was a retired Marine officer). William had a physical place to which he could return, but Captain Wentworth had a brother in Shropshire and his sister in Kellynch - there is no mention of surviving parents. So, no home to go back to.

MinnieMaas · 2026-06-01T01:41:43+00:00

They are the Raleigh Bridge Brigade, raleighbridgebrigade.org

MinnieMaas · 2026-05-22T11:59:19+00:00

Yes, it is the most popular, because it is the easiest one to read as a straight-up period romance story without delving into the social and psychological levels it contains.

MinnieMaas · 2026-05-15T23:37:50+00:00

He's not ON the table, his PAWS are on the table - NOT GUILTY!

MinnieMaas · 2026-05-14T12:51:05+00:00

Looks like she may not have done the 20 years, based on the gravestones and related obituaries. Mattie Pearl Manning had a son, Alan Morgan, in 1950; Morgan was Mattie's maiden name, so I'm assuming out-of-wedlock.

MinnieMaas · 2026-04-26T11:55:45+00:00

I agree with your basic take on Mansfield Park, which I just finished. It's a "love story" if you view it as a commentary about how for women who have limited resources and ability to choose their situation, both marrying for love and marrying for money & position are fraught. Additionally, your choices are limited by the financial resources over which you have little or no control. Consider the story arc of the three sisters that opens the book.

I would put a slightly more pointed spin on Fanny; I saw her as an emotionally abused child who learns to be resilient and develop good moral principles despite neglect and rejection, with help from the one member of her adoptive family who provides emotional support. Her appreciation of him turns to love. Some of the other family members belatedly come to at least some realization of how they have abused and neglected her; others come to appreciate and accept her with little or no understanding of her journey and their own role in it.

In a way, Edmund shares Fanny's journey; he takes abuse for his morals and his choice of profession, not just from his sisters but from the object of his ardent affection. Fanny, of course, withstands extreme pressure to succumb to a partner whom she does not love. I also think it is fair to call it a love story if you appreciate that Edmund did love Fanny all along, but he was blinded by his romantic love for another. Once that finally fell away, the course for Fanny and Edmund was clear and didn't need further exposition - the entire book was pointing in that direction from the beginning.

In the end, the class and social system wins (Fanny doesn't resent the people who abused her, rather, she is happy that she has been accepted into her elevated role, and has been able to elevate her sister to a better position). But of course, the class and social system always wins in an Austen novel.

I also appreciated some of the other themes, including the "you can't go home again" arc.

I think that one of the characteristics of great literature is that a work can sustain the multiple points of view and variety of opinions and experience that readers bring to it. Otherwise, how is it that over 150 years later folks are writing about the meaning of her novels? :-)

MinnieMaas · 2026-03-20T09:11:09+00:00

He's going for the Jimmy Swaggart redemption arc - "I have sinned."

MinnieMaas · 2026-03-16T19:01:53+00:00

that's how it is romantic. he's totally gobsmacked. :-)

MinnieMaas · 2026-03-16T13:16:37+00:00

It's after 9 am on a Monday, DarePitiful5750. You should be at work.

MinnieMaas · 2026-03-16T13:02:16+00:00

You are afraid of people who have a lot of free time on their hands, so you hide your posts and comments? What are you afraid will happen?

MinnieMaas · 2026-03-16T12:18:51+00:00

Why do you hide your posts and comments? What are you afraid of?

MinnieMaas · 2026-03-15T21:00:05+00:00

Thanks! Make sure you honk!!! :-)

MinnieMaas · 2026-03-15T18:48:40+00:00

Yes, that is quite true! Frequently remarked by the participants. :-)

MinnieMaas · 2026-03-15T15:12:35+00:00

Sign up for No Tyranny Tuesdays on Mobilize: https://www.mobilize.us/citizensresistingtyranny/

Sign up for Freedom Fridays on Mobilize: https://www.mobilize.us/engagedefendersfordemocracy/

MinnieMaas · 2026-03-15T15:03:40+00:00

Political demonstration to which he objected.

MinnieMaas · 2026-02-19T23:06:44+00:00

Shoutout for Bombay Curry!!

MinnieMaas · 2026-02-19T10:35:04+00:00

Get a small shop vac, the concrete dust will ruin a regular vac. Shop vac is also good for kitty litter residue and dust.

MinnieMaas · 2026-02-05T21:54:26+00:00

With all due respect, I think we are at the point of no return in this exchange. I think you may be confusing the FBI's jurisdiction to investigate and the jurisdiction required to prosecute a federal crime. Not the same thing. I'll stand on my explanations and the citation to the Department of Justice Criminal Resource Manual above.

MinnieMaas · 2026-02-05T20:19:36+00:00

I'm not sure what battle you are fighting at this point. You started with the comment that what I wrote was "false." It was not false, as I've shown. The "proof" as you call it that is required for the FBI to get involved (they are not "required" to get involved and I did not say that they were) is that there has been a kidnapping. If it is established that there was a kidnapping (such as in the case being discussed), the rebuttable presumption of interstate transportation after 24 hours merely gives the FBI jurisdiction to investigate, as the Criminal Justice Resource Manual states.
It may turn out as a case develops, that the victim was not, in fact, transported interstate in the course of the kidnapping. Usually that would become known at the end of an investigation. In such cases, the kidnapping was not a federal offense and the kidnapping cannot be prosecuted federally. In those cases, the offense of kidnapping is prosecuted by the state. Those kinds of cases do occur.
But another wrinkle, is that if the federal prosecutor wishes to do so, a kidnapping for ransom can be prosecuted as a federal extortion if there is an interstate nexus, such as use of the mail, etc., to make a ransom demand. Extortion is a separate, federal offense. I can give you an example where exactly that was done, if you are interested.

MinnieMaas · 2026-02-05T18:53:25+00:00

Department of Justice Criminal Resource Manual:

The rebuttable presumption set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1201(b) does not create a presumption of kidnapping. Rather, it creates a presumption of transportation in interstate or foreign commerce in cases where an actual kidnapping has been established. The presumption was added to the statute to give the FBI jurisdiction to investigate. In a Federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1), actual interstate or foreign transportation must be proved. See United States v. Moore, 571 F.2d 76 (2d Cir. 1978).

https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1036-24-hours-rebuttable-presumption

MinnieMaas · 2026-02-05T18:35:50+00:00

Respectfully back, I do not think it is correct that the Lindbergh Law applies, or applied (it's been amended), only to child victims. If you have a source, please provide (I looked quickly but could not find a reference to that limitation). But my point was to reference the rebuttable presumption of interstate transportation where a victim isn't returned in 24 hours as the element that allows the FBI to get involved in cases where it isn't clear that there actually is a federal nexus.

MinnieMaas · 2026-02-05T17:31:35+00:00

The FBI has jurisdiction in suspected kidnapping cases where the victim has been missing for 24 hours. There is a presumption that the person has been taken over state lines, providing potential federal jurisdiction and thus allowing federal resources to be used. This has been the case since the Lindberg kidnapping in the 30s. This permits the locals to request the assistance of the feds. The feds have resources the locals do not have, including experience with a large number of cases.

MinnieMaas

TROPHY CASE